IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jcsosc/v6y2023i1d10.1007_s42001-022-00196-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A scoping review on the use of natural language processing in research on political polarization: trends and research prospects

Author

Listed:
  • Renáta Németh

    (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University)

Abstract

As part of the “text-as-data” movement, Natural Language Processing (NLP) provides a computational way to examine political polarization. We conducted a methodological scoping review of studies published since 2010 (n = 154) to clarify how NLP research has conceptualized and measured political polarization, and to characterize the degree of integration of the two different research paradigms that meet in this research area. We identified biases toward US context (59%), Twitter data (43%) and machine learning approach (33%). Research covers different layers of the political public sphere (politicians, experts, media, or the lay public), however, very few studies involved more than one layer. Results indicate that only a few studies made use of domain knowledge and a high proportion of the studies were not interdisciplinary. Those studies that made efforts to interpret the results demonstrated that the characteristics of political texts depend not only on the political position of their authors, but also on other often-overlooked factors. Ignoring these factors may lead to overly optimistic performance measures. Also, spurious results may be obtained when causal relations are inferred from textual data. Our paper provides arguments for the integration of explanatory and predictive modeling paradigms, and for a more interdisciplinary approach to polarization research.

Suggested Citation

  • Renáta Németh, 2023. "A scoping review on the use of natural language processing in research on political polarization: trends and research prospects," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 289-313, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jcsosc:v:6:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s42001-022-00196-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s42001-022-00196-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s42001-022-00196-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s42001-022-00196-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jingjing Liu & Xiangmin Zhang, 2019. "The role of domain knowledge in document selection from search results," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 70(11), pages 1236-1247, November.
    2. Jacob Jensen & Ethan Kaplan & Suresh Naidu & Laurence Wilse-Samson, 2012. "Political Polarization and the Dynamics of Political Language: Evidence from 130 Years of Partisan Speech," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 43(2 (Fall)), pages 1-81.
    3. Grover, Purva & Kar, Arpan Kumar & Dwivedi, Yogesh K. & Janssen, Marijn, 2019. "Polarization and acculturation in US Election 2016 outcomes – Can twitter analytics predict changes in voting preferences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 438-460.
    4. Ignacio-Jesús Serrano-Contreras & Javier García-Marín & Óscar G. Luengo, 2020. "Measuring Online Political Dialogue: Does Polarization Trigger More Deliberation?," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 63-72.
    5. Jacob Jensen & Ethan Kaplan & Suresh Naidu & Laurence Wilse-Samson, 2012. "Political Polarization and the Dynamics of Political Language: Evidence from 130 Years of Partisan Speech," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 45(2 (Fall)), pages 1-81.
    6. Iliyan R. Iliev & Xin Huang & Yulia R. Gel, 2019. "Political rhetoric through the lens of non‐parametric statistics: are our legislators that different?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 182(2), pages 583-604, February.
    7. Diermeier, Daniel & Godbout, Jean-François & Yu, Bei & Kaufmann, Stefan, 2012. "Language and Ideology in Congress," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 31-55, January.
    8. Hausladen, Carina I. & Schubert, Marcel H. & Ash, Elliott, 2020. "Text classification of ideological direction in judicial opinions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    9. Diaf, Sami & Döpke, Jörg & Fritsche, Ulrich & Rockenbach, Ida, 2022. "Sharks and minnows in a shoal of words: Measuring latent ideological positions based on text mining techniques," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    10. Jake M. Hofman & Duncan J. Watts & Susan Athey & Filiz Garip & Thomas L. Griffiths & Jon Kleinberg & Helen Margetts & Sendhil Mullainathan & Matthew J. Salganik & Simine Vazire & Alessandro Vespignani, 2021. "Integrating explanation and prediction in computational social science," Nature, Nature, vol. 595(7866), pages 181-188, July.
    11. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    12. Matt Taddy, 2013. "Multinomial Inverse Regression for Text Analysis," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 108(503), pages 755-770, September.
    13. Abhishek Samantray & Paolo Pin, 2019. "Credibility of climate change denial in social media," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    14. Ademmer, Esther & Stöhr, Tobias, 2019. "The making of a new cleavage? Evidence from social media debates about migration," Kiel Working Papers 2140, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gavin Abercrombie & Riza Batista-Navarro, 2020. "Sentiment and position-taking analysis of parliamentary debates: a systematic literature review," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 245-270, April.
    2. Caroline Le Pennec, 2020. "Strategic Campaign Communication: Evidence from 30,000 Candidate Manifestos," SoDa Laboratories Working Paper Series 2020-05, Monash University, SoDa Laboratories.
    3. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    4. Bose, Neha, 2020. "Attitude towards Immigrants: Evidence from U.S. Congressional Speeches," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 464, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    5. Bose, Neha, 2020. "Attitude towards Immigrants: Evidence from U.S. Congressional Speeches," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1259, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    6. Elliott Ash & Germain Gauthier & Philine Widmer, 2021. "RELATIO: Text Semantics Capture Political and Economic Narratives," Papers 2108.01720, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    7. Gloria Gennaro & Elliott Ash, 2022. "Emotion and Reason in Political Language," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(643), pages 1037-1059.
    8. Sabina J Sloman & Daniel M Oppenheimer & Simon DeDeo, 2021. "Can we detect conditioned variation in political speech? two kinds of discussion and types of conversation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-28, February.
    9. Morales, Juan S., 2021. "Legislating during war: Conflict and politics in Colombia," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    10. Jeremias Nieminen & Salla Simola & Janne Tukiainen, 2023. "Political representation and the evolution of group differences within parties: Evidence from 110 years of parliamentary speech," Discussion Papers 161, Aboa Centre for Economics.
    11. Julia Cagé & Caroline Le Pennec & Elisa Mougin, 2021. "Corporate Donations and Political Rhetoric: Evidence from a National Ban," Working Papers hal-03877943, HAL.
    12. Azzimonti, Marina, 2018. "Partisan conflict and private investment," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 114-131.
    13. Gloria Gennaro & Giampaolo Lecce & Massimo Morelli, 2019. "Intertemporal Evidence on the Strategy of Populism," Working Papers 647, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    14. Nelson P. Rayl & Nitish R. Sinha, 2022. "Integrating Prediction and Attribution to Classify News," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2022-042, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    15. Draca, Mirko & Schwarz, Carlo, 2019. "How Polarized are Citizens? Measuring Ideology from the Ground-Up," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1218, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    16. Scott R. Baker & Nicholas Bloom & Brandice Canes-Wrone & Steven J. Davis & Jonathan Rodden, 2014. "Why Has US Policy Uncertainty Risen since 1960?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 56-60, May.
    17. Elliott Ash & Daniel L. Chen & Suresh Naidu, 2022. "Ideas Have Consequences : The Impact of Law and Economics on American Justice," Working Papers hal-03899739, HAL.
    18. Roland G. Fryer, Jr. & Philipp Harms & Matthew O. Jackson, 2013. "Updating Beliefs with Ambiguous Evidence: Implications for Polarization," NBER Working Papers 19114, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Hacioglu Hoke, Sinem, 2019. "Macroeconomic effects of political risk shocks," Bank of England working papers 841, Bank of England.
    20. Hansen, Stephen & Davis, Steven & Seminario-Amez, Cristhian, 2020. "Firm-level Risk Exposures and Stock Returns in the Wake of COVID-19," CEPR Discussion Papers 15314, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jcsosc:v:6:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s42001-022-00196-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.